Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: edwinland
Looking at your linked essay I ran across this.

"The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law."

Absolutely wrong. "Citizen" is not a British term for someone born with allegiance to a nation. The British term is "Subject", and you will find "natural born subject" all throughout British common law, but you will not find "Citizen" in it at all.

Our usage of "Citizen" comes from Switzerland, which at the time was the only nation in the world that used the word "Citizen" to mean a member of a nation.

The word "citizen" was little used in the English of the time, and when it was, it meant "City Dweller", not member of a nation.

Subject is the only word the British ever used, and guess what? "Subjects" were required to have perpetual allegiance to the crown, and could not become "citizens", or even "subjects" of any other nation.

It was absolutely forbidden, according to both British Common Law and Statute law.

"Citizen" does not mean "Subject". "Citizens" are from Republics, and "Subjects" are from Monarchies.

The founders tossed out the British common law model when they adopted the Swiss "Citizen" model.

64 posted on 06/22/2024 10:15:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

True. The founders were born subjects of the King but considered themselves to be natural born citizens of their respective States hence the language in the Constitution.


73 posted on 06/22/2024 12:59:16 PM PDT by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson